Yup the media, fact checkers, hell half the scientific community are told what to say.

Okay, first of all, at this point in time the matter of Covid-19's origin is being investigated. There has not been a definitive answer or result to that as of this writing. But many on the politics stream have unfortunately taken that to mean the explanation of bat-to-human transference is automatically wrong (they love to take shortcuts thru the facts on this stream).

Second, if a fact-checking website decides to take down a fact-check because the matter involved is being investigated to determine the truth (which it is in this case) or because it was later determined to be a mistake (which is NOT the case here), it's very difficult (well, difficult for any reasonable person anyway) to infer that the website originally posted the fact-check with the intent to lie, deceive or, as you claim, spread leftist propaganda.

Finally, even if the Wuhan laboratory leak theory turns out to be true, it doesn't automatically negate the accuracy of every other fact-check on the website, nor on every other fact-checking website. That's like saying "Alice says A and B are true. Bob has proven A is false, therefore B must also be false." which is illogical.

On an unrelated note, I really wish Imgflip gave users the ability to search their own comments.

1) It is irrelevant if bat-to-human transference has been definitely ruled out, because the mere fact that it is no longer an established fact necessarily means that Politifact published false information by claiming the lab-made-virus theory was a "debunked conspiracy theory". Politifact spread misinformation.

2) Your comment falsely assumes that it was this particular incident that led me to infer an "intent to lie, deceive or....spread leftist propaganda". It's actually a larger history of activity which makes me infer the latter, but this recent incident merely fits the pattern of behavior.

3) Now you're touching on the very heart of what it means to be a "fact checker". To be a "fact checker" means that you get it right, period. If you don't know the answer to a question, then you don't claim that it's false, or a "debunked conspiracy theory". The entire purpose of "fact checkers is to be a guard-of-last-resort. Once the fact checker gets something wrong (especially something as foreseeable as this), it necessitates the need for a "fact checker for the fact checker". In other words, the fact checker's job has now become irrelevant, or worse - a spreader of false information masquerading as "strictly factual".

You say that "it doesn't automatically negate the accuracy of every other fact-check on the website". Ok, but which ones? If a fact checker told us to trust them on the COVID origin theory, and later had to reverse course, why should we trust it for *any* story? How do we know they won't just reverse course on all sorts of claims it made next year? Two years down the road? Or what if they published misinformation but don't ever "fess up"?

1. Bat-to-human transference not been definitively ruled out as of yet, so your argument here is moot.

2. I didn't actually claim that it was ONLY a particular claim that caused you to make such an inference. And how exactly have you "known all along", anyway?

3. You're completely misinterpreting the stance Politifact has taken with this issue. They did a fact check based on the information that was available to them and at the time, it was not disputed by scientific consensus because other viruses have transferred to humans from animals. The fact that it is now in dispute doesn't mean they lied or spread misinformation. The simple fact that Politifact is willing to rectify a mistake (and again, the jury's still out on this being a mistake) proves they have integrity and can be trusted.

Nobody in the entire world is infallible, no matter how experienced or thorough they are. To take the stance of "there is a possibility that maybe they'll be wrong, therefore they are not trustworthy" is a ridiculously shortsighted decision to make. Can you honestly say that you've been right about everything? Are you just going to question every source like some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist if it doesn't fit your narrative? It certainly looks that way based on your "lefty propagandist" meme.

1) It looks like you did not read and/or think through my statement, as you erroneously claimed my point was "moot" while not addressing the point that I raised.

2) You presented your claim as an if-then statement pertaining to the present case we are discussing, which is the reason for the inference. However, just to clarify, there is a longer history of so-called "fact checkers" exhibiting traits. This isn't a criticism for not knowing (it's not universal knowledge), but I'm letting you know now.

3) Unfortunately, the "mistake based upon information available at the time" is not a convincing argument. The reason is that such an excuse could be used virtually all of the time to excuse the publication of misinformation. If only limited information is available at the time, then a fact checker should not make claims about the truth or falsity of stories. Quite clearly, a) limited information about the source of the virus was available months ago, b) Politifact made a particular claim about the truth/falsity of the source of the virus anyway.

Lastly, you are right that people make mistakes once in a while. However, the problem is that a) the mistake here was avoidable, b) the mistake contributed to actual harm, and c) the mistake fits a pattern of political propaganda which seeks to advance a partisan, leftist narrative under the guise of "objective" truth.

Wow, doppel... You completely glossed over the fact that they flat out claimed it was debunked. To say something is debunked then have to backtrack is an obvious lack of intellectual integrity. Much like you. But, in your case, you just lack intelligence which is inferred by your bunk explanation.

And now the personal attacks begin. Pretty much what I expected from this crowd. Also, I'm pretty sure I did in fact address that. Maybe you should quit glossing over other people's responses.